User login

Follow us on:

Syndicate

Proposition 37

Fishermen, environmentalists and consumer advocates were disappointed - but not surprised - by the narrow defeat of Proposition 37, the initiative calling for the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food in California, on November 6.

GE food opponents said they will be ramping up the campaign across the country to make GE labeling the law in the coming year and are already organizing in over a dozen states.

Halloween has passed but we still face a few more days of political scare tactics heading into Election Day. One such campaign zombie that deserves to be exposed is an argument against Proposition 37, the ballot measure that will require labeling of food products that contain genetically engineered organisms (GMOs). It's that old political horror flick standby - the trial lawyer bogeyman.

Before we confront the scare tactic, let's look at some facts. GMOs are increasingly found in our foodstuffs. Reasonable minds disagree about their relative benefits for the food industry when weighed against the potential of health risks. Whichever side you fall on, it would seem fundamentally unreasonable to hide information from consumers about the presence of GMOs in food.

In less than two weeks, Californians will vote on Proposition 37, which would require labeling of food sold in California grocery stores if the food contains genetically engineered ingredients. Sixty-one other countries already have this requirement in place. You should not have to be a chemist, toxicologist or geneticist to have trust in your food.

There is a long history of false reassurances in the environmental health world, including about many pesticides, fumigants, food dyes and preservatives. The most outrageous manipulations of public trust were industry denials of hazards from tobacco, and the misinformation from the lead industry, which worked aggressively in opposition to the concerns of pediatricians and others about lead's toxicity, especially to children.

The people's movement for our right to know what's in our food has hit a critical fork in the road: the moment when it's time to ask ourselves and each other - how hard are we willing to fight for our basic right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families?

Proposition 37 is the litmus test for whether there is actually a food movement in this country, writes Michael Pollan in an article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. It may also be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country.

The results are in from the first-ever peer-reviewed long-term health study of genetically engineered food – and they are worrying. For two years, researchers fed rats a diet of genetically engineered corn that is common in the US food supply, and found massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.